I still like it!

[Rocket Surgeon]

That was the premise of Raiders from the second reel. You don't set that Chekhov's gun up in a family adventure film and not fire it!

Unless of course, it's a RED herring!

Which is what the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was.

The beauty of Raiders, without the benefit of hindsight, is that they sprinkled in doubt and alternate depictions.

A weapon, a transmitter, not of this earth, power of God, etc...we really didn't know WHAT would happen. Even Belloq spread dissent late in the film...one of his last lines cast doubt: ...only to find out THEN...obtained the one TRUE Ark!

 

[emtiem]

Unless of course, it's a RED herring!

Which is what the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was.

I'm not sure what you mean.

The beauty of Raiders, without the benefit of hindsight, is that they sprinkled in doubt and alternate depictions.

A weapon, a transmitter, not of this earth, power of God, etc...we really didn't know WHAT would happen.

But we knew something would happen.

Even Belloq spread dissent late in the film...one of his last lines cast doubt: ...only to find out THEN...obtained the one TRUE Ark!

But that was after we saw it burning the swastika off itself: we knew it was real for certain by then.

 

[Rocket Surgeon]

I'm not sure what you mean.

Regarding?

But we knew something would happen.

That's the point of almost all stories...see Eric Idle as The Waiter in "The Meaning of Life"

But that was after we saw it burning the swastika off itself: we knew it was real for certain by then.

In hind sight, or if you're a film student. There were still a few destinies it could have fufilled.

 

[Attila the Professor]

In hind sight, or if you're a film student. There were still a few destinies it could have fufilled.

Yeah, including just being there while Indy knocked some Nazi heads together. Darth Vile and Rocket Surgeon are making a good point that I've never really given much thought to before, that since the formula wasn't established for these films, that it was perfectly reasonable to expect some sort of action film ending, presumably with Indy himself somehow taking out Belloq and the Nazis and recovering the Ark. The ending seems perfectly inevitable now, just as Mola Ram's death scene certainly seems lacking once compared to the two films that came after it. But in 1981, and even in 1984, there were broader possibilities.

 

[James]

Even Belloq spread dissent late in the film...one of his last lines cast doubt: ...only to find out THEN...obtained the one TRUE Ark!

I think Belloq just wanted to open that box- lest any of Hitler's top men take it away from him.

 

[emtiem]

Yeah, including just being there while Indy knocked some Nazi heads together. Darth Vile and Rocket Surgeon are making a good point that I've never really given much thought to before, that since the formula wasn't established for these films, that it was perfectly reasonable to expect some sort of action film ending, presumably with Indy himself somehow taking out Belloq and the Nazis and recovering the Ark.

Yes, that was more than possible, but the Ark being shown to have supernatural powers and unleashing the lightning in some form was inevitable from when the film began: it's just a basic rule of good storytelling. How exactly that came about and how the plot was resolved is of course a surprise:there's nothing inevitable about the Ark's power actually being the resolution- that was a very clever stroke from the creators.

 

[emtiem]

Regarding?

Your Crystal Skull joke(?). Is it a pun on being Commie? And no, couldn't have been a red herring- that's the point of Chekhov's Gun.

That's the point of almost all stories...see Eric Idle as The Waiter in "The Meaning of Life"

Something supernatural.

In hind sight, or if you're a film student. There were still a few destinies it could have fufilled.

But all involved being shown to have the power of God inside it. That's all I'm saying: we didn't know what would happen exactly but it is clear that the Ark's power will (or should) be shown. Everyone knows the rules of storytelling whether or not they know what words to give them- if a story satisfies you then it satisfies you. If Raiders had played exactly as it does all the way through only for Indy to punch them all to oblivion and rocket pack his way off Nazi island with no more mention of the Ark and no demonstration of its power i.e. whether the whole story had been worthwhile, you wouldn't have been satisfied.

 

[Indy's Fist]

Also for anyone who wants to check it out, IMDB.com has a list of every movie, including the Indy movie's errors. I will say this the lists are extensive as each of the Indy films, even Raiders are quite flawed. While not 100% accurate, these lists do shed light on the numerous errors sprinkled throughout the films. It might make it eaisier for some to enjoy KOTCS knowing that the originals were just as flawed.

I think it's also important to know that these films were all based on corny Saturday movies & b-films, they are loving tributes.

 

[Attila the Professor]

Of course, the thing about Chekhov's gun is that sometimes, the guy holding the gun misses the target. (Wonder how many people who talk about Chekhov's gun actually know Chekhov?)

Which is to say: good storytelling involves breaking rules. And bad storytelling isn't aware of them in the first place. So it didn't have to "go off".

 

[emtiem]

Even if it misses the target it has gone off!

The only bit of bad storytelling I can think of in Raiders is that we aren't told that you can't look at the Ark. Otherwise the Ark powers are made relevant, showcased and foreshadowed: the audience aren't left in any doubt that it is the real Ark and that we're going to see it do something scary. Just listening to its theme tells you that alone.

 

[Darth Vile]

Yes, that was more than possible, but the Ark being shown to have supernatural powers and unleashing the lightning in some form was inevitable from when the film began: it's just a basic rule of good storytelling. How exactly that came about and how the plot was resolved is of course a surprise:there's nothing inevitable about the Ark's power actually being the resolution- that was a very clever stroke from the creators.

emtiem – just a reply/response to your other posts as well…

I don’t believe Raiders fantasy/supernatural conclusion to be “inevitable” at all. Naritively speaking, the Ark is the Macguffin… and in true Hitchcockian tradition, its real purpose/power is largely irrelevant and unnecessary for the audience to witness... What is fundamental however, is that the audience needs to understand that the protagonists want it/desire it. It’s that understanding of the protagonists motives that the scene (Indy explaining the Ark to the FBI) serves. Any legitimization of the Ark’s powers from this scene is a bi-product (because, at this point, the Ark having true powers is largely irrelevant to story progression).

Cinematically speaking, the Ark reveal is the equivalent of the alien aboard the life boat Narcissus (Alien) or Carrie’s (Carrie) shocking graveside reunion with Sue i.e. perhaps cliché/obvious when looking back on it after circa 30 years, but back then… rather unprecedented. Regardless of how one may perceive Raiders now (or any time post 81), I was talking specifically about when it was new i.e. an unknown quantity, not a forgone conclusion... and the ending was seen as somewhat radical (which is a good thing).

Interestingly, if you read earlier drafts/discussions of the Raiders script, the whole power of the Ark thing is a lot more ambiguous. So I’d posit that seeing the power of the Ark was not “inevitable”, but rather a consequence of Lucas/Spielberg simply wanting to up the anti for that final reel (which Lucas had some success with, with Star Wars: ANH). Indeed, most other action/adventure movies would probably bring the proceedings to a natural end after the truck chase, so it’s easy to see that at the time, audiences couldn’t see where the last 10/20 mins were going e.g. was it just going to be another fist fight with explosions? Would the Ark be revealed as a fake after all etc?

This genuine "suspense" in the final reel is a key component of why the movie was so good… Again, during 1980/81, Raiders was tagged as an “action adventure movie, harkening back to the serials of the 1930’s”. There was very little precedence for a modern out an out action movie to turn all supernatural and "power of God" like. But of course, Raiders set that precedence...

 

[Rocket Surgeon]

Your Crystal Skull joke(?). Is it a pun on being Commie? And no, couldn't have been a red herring- that's the point of Chekhov's Gun.

Yes, and the example of a Red Herring and that it's basically the opposite of Pavl's Gun...

Something supernatural.

No, "the point of a story"

it is clear that the Ark's power will (or should) be shown.

Who can tell if it's going to be a S#itty ending? (Ever see 1941?)

Everyone knows the rules of storytelling

No, no they don't. That's why Raiders isn't Romancing the Stone or High Road to China or, King Solomon's Mines.

If Raiders had played exactly as it does all the way through only for Indy to punch them all to oblivion and rocket pack his way off Nazi island with no more mention of the Ark and no demonstration of its power i.e. whether the whole story had been worthwhile, you wouldn't have been satisfied.

See above examples...
Our satisfaction hardly weighs in on the direction of a film, I guess I don't understand your point...

The only bit of bad storytelling I can think of in Raiders is that we aren't told that you can't look at the Ark.

They actually cut the scene, Imam tells them.

If they left it in, Chekov's Gun would have been The Paris Gun.

 

[Indy's Fist]

Would most here agree with me that KOTCS is better than most of the "knock-offs" like The Mummy movies, National Treasure movies, etc. or at least as good?

 

[Perhilion]

definitely.

 

[emtiem]

emtiem – just a reply/response to your other posts as well…

I don’t believe Raiders fantasy/supernatural conclusion to be “inevitable” at all. Naritively speaking, the Ark is the Macguffin… and in true Hitchcockian tradition, its real purpose/power is largely irrelevant and unnecessary for the audience to witness... What is fundamental however, is that the audience needs to understand that the protagonists want it/desire it. It’s that understanding of the protagonists motives that the scene (Indy explaining the Ark to the FBI) serves. Any legitimization of the Ark’s powers from this scene is a bi-product (because, at this point, the Ark having true powers is largely irrelevant to story progression).

I don't really that's true- if we discover that the whole objective driving the film was actually for nothing then that would undercut the whole film: there are films where an ironic 'it was all for nothing' ending do work, but not in a straightforward good guy vs. bad guys film as Raiders.

Interestingly, if you read earlier drafts/discussions of the Raiders script, the whole power of the Ark thing is a lot more ambiguous. So I’d posit that seeing the power of the Ark was not “inevitable”, but rather a consequence of Lucas/Spielberg simply wanting to up the anti for that final reel (which Lucas had some success with, with Star Wars: ANH).

Is it not equally possible that they changed that because they realised it simply wouldn't be a satisfying film unless the Ark was the real thing and shown to be? There's plenty of other stuff they dumped/changed for no other reason that it wouldn't have worked (mine cart chase etc.).
Anyway; what they originally thought that they might do is irrelevant: we're talking about how, for the audience watching the version of Raiders that actually exists, by the time the final reel is on the way there is no doubt that the Ark is a real, genuine supernatural artefact and how we're going to see it blow somehow. I've said it before, but listen to the soundtrack as Indy is explaining the Ark to the FBI men: this isn't going to turn out to be a fake- John Williams is telling us it's real, it's ancient, it's God's work and it's dangerous. Look at the quite foreboding scene where Marcus warns Indy that it's like nothing he's gone after before- he's telling us this is a real, powerful, spooky thing. We're being told by the director what this thing is, and if he's going to try and trick us at the end and say 'neh- it was all a big joke! It was just a fake!' then he's playing a trick on the audience which goes against the whole spirit of the genre he's set up from the opening act onwards. This is an innocent, fun film: it's not a post-modern joke. Remember how some people moaned about KOTCS being about aliens and how they felt let down that an Indy film would be about that? If the Ark had turned out to be a dud the moaning would be a thousand times worse and still going on to this day: it just wouldn't be satisfying: the whole film would stall at that point.

 

[Darth Vile]

I don't really that's true- if we discover that the whole objective driving the film was actually for nothing then that would undercut the whole film: there are films where an ironic 'it was all for nothing' ending do work, but not in a straightforward good guy vs. bad guys film as Raiders.

The “objective driving the film” was not a promise to see the power of God channeled through the ‘Ark of the Covenant’. I’ve never once heard or read an interview with Lucas/Spielberg, where they stated that the movies raison d'être was to prove "the Ark's/God's validity and existence". Besides, as already mentioned, you are coming at this from a retrospective angle i.e. your perspective is based on seeing the movie post 1981. I am talking about a shared experience when seeing the movie at the time of first release. Disagreeing with me about how I (and many others) perceived the movie, is a bit like me disagreeing with my grandfather about HIS experience of WWII.

As already mentioned, there is enough evidence to suggest that the dénouement of Raiders was designed to be both shocking and surprising. Believing the dénouement to be a given/obvious ending is, IMHO, not giving Lucas/Spielberg (and the movie itself) the credit it rightly deserves.

Is it not equally possible that they changed that because they realised it simply wouldn't be a satisfying film unless the Ark was the real thing and shown to be? There's plenty of other stuff they dumped/changed for no other reason that it wouldn't have worked (mine cart chase etc.).
Anyway; what they originally thought that they might do is irrelevant: we're talking about how, for the audience watching the version of Raiders that actually exists, by the time the final reel is on the way there is no doubt that the Ark is a real, genuine supernatural artefact and how we're going to see it blow somehow.

Their original ideas are not "irrelevant" at all. It aptly demonstrates Lucas'/Spielberg's ambitions for Raiders. It's clear that they wanted the Ark to be legitimized i.e. shown to have some form of power. But it's also clear they wanted some level of ambiguity… I Just don’t see how you get to the conclusion that, because the filmmakers chose a pseudo religious/supernatural ending over another action scene, that it somehow makes it not surprising/shocking for the audience???

 

[emtiem]

The ?objective driving the film? was not a promise to see the power of God channeled through the ?Ark of the Covenant?. I?ve never once heard or read an interview with Lucas/Spielberg, where they stated that the movies raison d'être was to prove "the Ark's/God's validity and existence".

No; the objective is to find the Ark: a powerful weapon in the eyes of the Nazis. But if their point of view of it isn't proven to be valid, then the whole chase to find it is reduced in importance. The entire film becomes less dramatic if the Ark isn't what they think it is.
And if we get into interviews then we get into the whole endless debate about intention vs. interpretation; which can be a real nightmare!

Besides, as already mentioned, you are coming at this from a retrospective angle i.e. your perspective is based on seeing the movie post 1981. I am talking about a shared experience when seeing the movie at the time of first release. Disagreeing with me about how I (and many others) perceived the movie, is a bit like me disagreeing with my grandfather about HIS experience of WWII.

I haven't- I'm talking about how the movie works while you're watching it. As I said: I was young when I first saw it and knew nothing about it beforehand- I learnt what the film was about while I was watching it.

As already mentioned, there is enough evidence to suggest that the dénouement of Raiders was designed to be both shocking and surprising. Believing the dénouement to be a given/obvious ending is, IMHO, not giving Lucas/Spielberg (and the movie itself) the credit it rightly deserves.

I think you're misunderstanding me- I haven't said that the ending is obvious: just that the fact that the Ark's power will be seen at some point is inevitable. The way they made that into the resolution of the plot was, as I said, the clever part and wasn't signposted. An excellent surprise.

Their original ideas are not "irrelevant" at all. It aptly demonstrates Lucas'/Spielberg's ambitions for Raiders. It's clear that they wanted the Ark to be legitimized i.e. shown to have some form of power. But it's also clear they wanted some level of ambiguity?

Then you can't really discount the idea that they filmed the opening scene with the Idol as a supernatural, almost alive object. Right from the start Spielberg wanted the film to open with the audience knowing that Indy operated in a world where the paranormal exists, pretty much unambiguously. And that was actually shot: not dropped at a scripting level.

I Just don?t see how you get to the conclusion that, because the filmmakers chose a pseudo religious/supernatural ending over another action scene, that it somehow makes it not surprising/shocking for the audience???

I didn't: I'm saying that the Ark being shown to have power wasn't a surprise by that point: not least because we'd already seen a prelude to it when it burned off a Nazi insignia! We've been gently persuaded to believe in its power all through the film. We didn't know exactly how the film would end and what form the plot resolution would take; just that the Ark was going to kick off in some way. The form in which that took was of course shocking and surprising; but the fact in itself that the Ark is a supernatural object is no surprise in itself at all.

 

[Darth Vile]

No; the objective is to find the Ark: a powerful weapon in the eyes of the Nazis. But if their point of view of it isn't proven to be valid, then the whole chase to find it is reduced in importance. The entire film becomes less dramatic if the Ark isn't what they think it is.
And if we get into interviews then we get into the whole endless debate about intention vs. interpretation; which can be a real nightmare!

I think we are both talking at cross-purposes…

It’s a given than the dénouement of Raiders makes for a better movie. It’s a given that the Ark being legitimized as the true “radio for speaking to God”, makes the movie more compelling. What I was stating is, back in 1981, the ending to Raiders WAS genuinely quite unexpected and shocking. Of course it wasn’t unexpected that the Ark turned out to be a genuine relic (the story clearly leads us that way), but it was unexpected how that manifested itself. There is nothing in the previous 110 minutes of the movie that even comes close to hinting at angels turning into demons, melting faces and exploding heads...

Up until the 1hr 50 minute point, Raiders is quite a (albeit great) traditional action/adventure movie, and not a supernatural/fantasy/horror movie. Believe me, when I first saw the movie in 1981, and heard the haunting Ark leitmotif for the first time, I didn’t automatically think, “we're going to see someone’s head explode before this movie ends”.

Broadening the conversation again… As already mentioned, it’s clear that Lucas/Spielberg wanted to hark back to the older type of movies. The premise of Raiders is based on the chase for the Macguffin, as opposed to understanding what the powers of the Macguffin are. Again it’s a given that the audience needs to understand why the protagonists are chasing it. But I do not believe that the chase would be “reduced in importance” simply by not seeing the “wham bam” of the Macguffin.

There are a multitude of classic action/adventure/thriller movies, which show how successful a MacGuffin can be. I think Raiders is another great example (although it could be argued that the headpiece to the staff of Ra is the actual Macguffin, and not the Ark): -


The 39 Steps (The 39 Steps).
The statuette (The Maltese Falcon).
The figurine (North By Northwest).
The Lektor (From Russia With Love).
The stamps (Charade).

And more recent examples…

The briefcase (Pulp Fiction)
The sword (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon)
The “rabbits foot” (MI3)

I haven't- I'm talking about how the movie works while you're watching it. As I said: I was young when I first saw it and knew nothing about it beforehand- I learnt what the film was about while I was watching it.

Movies are a product of their time. I’m not suggesting for a second that you are being disingenuous about your first experience of the movie... what I’m saying is that audiences/and the way we perceive cinema changes. For example, I never felt scared as a kid, when I first watched the black and white Universal horror movies. But just because I was never scared, doesn’t mean that the original audiences back in the 1930’s felt the same (because clearly they were considered scary in the 30's). I think one has to accept that audience perception changes, and that movies don't exist in a vacuum. This is partly what leads to movies aging badly/well.

Then you can't really discount the idea that they filmed the opening scene with the Idol as a supernatural, almost alive object. Right from the start Spielberg wanted the film to open with the audience knowing that Indy operated in a world where the paranormal exists, pretty much unambiguously. And that was actually shot: not dropped at a scripting level.

Interesting point. I’ve never seen a deleted scene or photograph showing the idol to be a supernatural object… so I can’t really comment. I can only say that if that were the case, I’m glad it was dropped. Raiders quota of verisimilitude is one of the major reasons why it works so well, and why it’s the strongest Indy movie to date.

 

[Rocket Surgeon]

I personally got a BIG laugh when Dovchenko told Indy and Marion

FOR LOVE OF GOD SHUT THE HELL UP!​

 

[Attila the Professor]

Interesting point. I?ve never seen a deleted scene or photograph showing the idol to be a supernatural object? so I can?t really comment. I can only say that if that were the case, I?m glad it was dropped. Raiders quota of verisimilitude is one of the major reasons why it works so well, and why it?s the strongest Indy movie to date.

I'm pretty sure that emtiem is wrong on the details of this one: I think it was some sort of mechanism within the idol that made it appear that the eyes were following whoever approached it. Hence the reason that the sandbag ended up being heavier than the idol - because the idol was supposedly not made of solid gold. No supernatural element involved.